Quote:with all due respect, one of the things that bugs me the most is when people don't read my posts.  It really urks me when people QUOTE my post and don't read it.  

 

1.) The sperm and the egg are indivdual cells as a product of the biological process called meosis.  The only contain half the genetic code of either parent.  The third organism doesn't have a genetic blue print in a cell capable of cellular mitosis (one of the criteria used to determine if a system is truly alive) until the moment of fertalization and then at that time once recognized and detected i would fundamentally consider it a human life.  

 

2.) as is the case with all human life, a human life can be ended legally.  If you are in my home rapping my wife i can kill you both morally and ethically.  If you are of a threat of great bodily injury and or death to me or someone else i can end your life legally.  In certain circumstances There are certain people who through medical proxy or living wills determine at which point certain medical care should be suspended because a certain standard of quality will no longer be possible and or to avoid prolonged unavoidable and unrecoverable pain and suffering.  In the case of a minor that decision would be made by the parents with the consultation of the doctor.  

 

Killing someone or something in and of itself is not MURDER.  to suggest otherwise ignores both the law and general moral realities.  Killing someone just because you don't want it to affect your wasteline IS.  

 

It is my position that in the calculus of determining the future of any human life it should be RESPECTED AS SUCH and that anyone seeking to terminate it under the eyes of the law and with the consent of society should show just cause to protect the mother from great injurious harm, the child from a life of torment and pain or in the extreme case that a woman was raped and became pregnant and could not find the constitution to care for the child personally or make it to term and deliver.  

 

To characterize my position as EXTREME is asinine when the alternative that you present is the inane SLAUGHTER of over 70 million people.  Within the next 20 years we will eclipse the amount of people that were killed in all wars since the dawn of the 20th century, THAT'S EXTREME.  Its the advocates of that policy that should have to TREAD CAREFULLY.  And more importantly if you want to advocate for that position then by all means stand up and be proud because if you are going to sit here and stand behind half a percent of the millions slaughtered as the reason to kill off the other 99.5% then you should take a minute to fully think about what that means.  

 

Please read my ENTIRE POST before responding.

 

That's a good post.   I just wish both sides of the abortion debate would acknowledge the legitimate position of the other side, because it is a difficult issue.  

 

We could eliminate 90% of abortions through more effective sex education and birth control.   And yet, the ironic thing is that so many of the people who see abortion as murder are also against better sex education and birth control.  So they are actually the cause of a lot of abortions, because they don't want to take the steps to prevent the kind of pregnancies that result in abortions. 

 

I don't think we can eliminate abortions by making them illegal, because science  marches on and abortions will be easier and easier to obtain, even if it is illegal.  Especially for the rich or well-educated people, who have always gotten abortions, even when it was illegal.   The way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and that means giving young women better sex education and birth control.   If you defund Planned Parenthood, you might actually increase the number of abortions, because you will eliminate a large resource that poor women have to help them reduce unwanted pregnancies.  

---